Thank you for visiting our NYCFC forum! We invite you to REGISTER and join our growing member base in discussion!
Registered members can join competitions and win monthly prizes.
So what are you waiting for!? Join us!
This is a great MLS community where you can discuss New York City Football Club and other MLS football teams as well as international and other domestic league teams.

The most important step for me is for the supporters groups for which these guys belong to to take some action.

But so far, they’ve just laughed this off (at least publicly)

Click to expand...

My bigger concern is the club’s reaction but I don’t want tot minimize this cause it’s a huge issue also. I feel like it’s dangerous to belong to any group now because a small number can co-opt and redefine the whole for some ignorant agenda, at least optically.

The most important step for me is for the supporters groups for which these guys belong to to take some action.

But so far, they’ve just laughed this off (at least publicly)

Click to expand...

Third Rail released a statement to members on Facebook but not publicly. NYCSC also haven't made a public statement. I've heard rumors that they've been asked not to. I haven't been able to ask anybody face to face about whether that's true or not.

On an individual level there has been some action. One of the Proud Boy-affiliated fans was confronted by an SC member.

I think the groups are a lot more heterogenous than you'd imagine. That's just social identity theory though - people in your group are mixed, people outside are homogenous. We have to actively work to get beyond our biases and think of these people as individuals and not members of a group that we aren't a member of.

That's another argument against doxxing IMO - it very firmly establishes the group barrier. If someone is shaming you because you are a member of a group, then it makes it that much more psychologically difficult to cross that group line publicly. It makes the ingroup that much more appealing and the outgroup that much more threatening. Which is why I think it's understandable that fewer individuals within these groups have been vocal about this publicly.

Third Rail released a statement to members on Facebook but not publicly. NYCSC also haven't made a public statement. I've heard rumors that they've been asked not to. I haven't been able to ask anybody face to face about whether that's true or not.

On an individual level there has been some action. One of the Proud Boy-affiliated fans was confronted by an SC member.

Click to expand...

That's fair. I'm a Third Rail member (though not very active) and saw that statement and do realize now that they haven't said anything publicly. The only things I saw from NYCSC (to be fair, I am not a member), was these two tweets:

That's another argument against doxxing IMO - it very firmly establishes the group barrier. If someone is shaming you because you are a member of a group, then it makes it that much more psychologically difficult to cross that group line publicly. It makes the ingroup that much more appealing and the outgroup that much more threatening. Which is why I think it's understandable that fewer individuals within these groups have been vocal about this publicly.

On this part, I would agree with you, except when it comes to people that are actively participating in hate groups. That whole group's basis is shaming other individuals based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That is not socially acceptable.

I'm not certain if I'm talking about shaming these individuals. But moreso calling them out and noting that this is not socially acceptable. I can't think of any instances where this has crossed the line (though I'm certain there are instances which it has).

That's fair. I'm a Third Rail member (though not very active) and saw that statement and do realize now that they haven't said anything publicly. The only things I saw from NYCSC (to be fair, I am not a member), was these two tweets:

On this part, I would agree with you, except when it comes to people that are actively participating in hate groups. That whole group's basis is shaming other individuals based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. That is not socially acceptable.

I'm not certain if I'm talking about shaming these individuals. But moreso calling them out and noting that this is not socially acceptable. I can't think of any instances where this has crossed the line (though I'm certain there are instances which it has).

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing me to that particular thread. I was involved somewhere on that branch but somehow missed it. Twitter could probably do a better job of defragmenting these discussions.

I think the thread builds upon the point I'm making. There is a ton of hostility there. There's even a seemingly neutral interjection from a Revs fan and he gets ridiculed and shamed. Tribal instincts tell us not to listen to the people who are shaming us even if it makes sense to.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with calling people out. I just don't think it's effective. The person calling them out doesn't get them to comply. The person getting called out doesn't get fairly represented. Worst of all, they are both distracted from the fact that they have common cause. Unless you count the ingroup validation, it's a lose-lose, so it's only "wrong" in that sense.

You whatabouted (very likely not a word) about Antifa as a certain group tends to do when the far right is being discussed. May not be a duck but certainly quacking like one.

Click to expand...

And my point about violent non political groups as another example which you so conveniently chose to ignore? You don’t have to answer. You’re obviously not interested in understanding what i’m saying as much as you are dismissing it which is why you continue to ignore pertinent counter arguments and ignore the fact that I have REPEATEDLY SAID I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT PROUD BOYS.

if I were excusing proud boys because of anti-fa, you’d be right. But i’m not... CAUSE PROUD BOYS ARE IGNORANT THUGS AND I DONT WANT THEM ANYWHERE NEAR THE CLUB.

Thanks for pointing me to that particular thread. I was involved somewhere on that branch but somehow missed it. Twitter could probably do a better job of defragmenting these discussions.

I think the thread builds upon the point I'm making. There is a ton of hostility there. There's even a seemingly neutral interjection from a Revs fan and he gets ridiculed and shamed. Tribal instincts tell us not to listen to the people who are shaming us even if it makes sense to.

I don't think there's anything "wrong" with calling people out. I just don't think it's effective. The person calling them out doesn't get them to comply. The person getting called out doesn't get fairly represented. Worst of all, they are both distracted from the fact that they have common cause. Unless you count the ingroup validation, it's a lose-lose, so it's only "wrong" in that sense.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse here then. But if you don't call someone out for being a discriminatory asshole, do we just let them continue to be discriminatory assholes?

I understand there's a balance between calling someone out and being hostile. And especially on social media platforms, things get a bit out of hand (one of our most respected posters on this board experienced this not too long ago, which interestingly enough was related to calling out those being violent at YS - or at the least, informing authorities - don't want to get back into all of that).

Perhaps I find this to be a puzzling question to ask because I don't see any reason to be hostile with anyone, in person, or online, so can easily go through with calling someone out. Whereas, the vast majority, or at least, the vast vocal majority (online especially), don't seem to be able to communicate with one another on items like this without being hostile.

And my point about violent non political groups as another example which you so conveniently chose to ignore? You don’t have to answer. You’re obviously not interested in understanding what i’m saying as much as you are dismissing it which is why you continue to ignore pertinent counter arguments and ignore the fact that I have REPEATEDLY SAID I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT PROUD BOYS.

if I were excusing proud boys because of anti-fa, you’d be right. But i’m not... CAUSE PROUD BOYS ARE IGNORANT THUGS AND I DONT WANT THEM ANYWHERE NEAR THE CLUB.

Click to expand...

If that was your only stance without whataboutism you wouldn't have had to type dissertations because no one would have questioned where you stood. Your whataboutism misrepresented you.

Perhaps I'm being a bit obtuse here then. But if you don't call someone out for being a discriminatory asshole, do we just let them continue to be discriminatory assholes?

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about calling out people who are associated (strongly or weakly) with people who (we think) are discriminatory assholes. Not the (so-called) discriminatory assholes.

I'm not trying to be coy - I really do think the lines are both fine and blurred and have been crossed indiscriminately (pun intended).

I think either way, engaging as directly and non-violently as possible makes sense. When it's not possible, we can rely on democratically determined processes and institutions.

In the end, I think that part of living in pluralistic democracies is having to settle for being caught between "being uncomfortable about something" and "not being able to find a fair way to draw a line between what is acceptable and unacceptable so that we can only get rid of that which makes us uncomfortable without getting rid of things that we are comfortable with and like". That doesn't mean not attempting to negotiate that line, but I think it has to happen non-violently and peacefully.

I said that in earlier pages of the thread. Repeatedly. You and others just ignored it.

ETA: in any case, if it’s clear now and you’re acknowledging that i’m not a neo-nazi or apologist, thanks. I’m just not sure if that’s what’s happening.

Click to expand...

I can only give you the benefit of the doubt since I don't personally know you. I want to believe the people who support our club are better than that which is why I may come off antagonistic when it seems like certain things are tolerated.

I think either way, engaging as directly and non-violently as possible makes sense. When it's not possible, we can rely on democratically determined processes and institutions.

In the end, I think that part of living in pluralistic democracies is having to settle for being caught between "being uncomfortable about something" and "not being able to find a fair way to draw a line between what is acceptable and unacceptable so that we can only get rid of that which makes us uncomfortable without getting rid of things that we are comfortable with and like". That doesn't mean not attempting to negotiate that line, but I think it has to happen non-violently and peacefully.

Click to expand...

This is well put. While today's society has many issues, I believe our inability to 1) admit when we're wrong, 2) listen to each other, and 3) be able to have tough conversations with each other without being confrontational is at the root of nearly all of the issues our society faces.